high qms usualy high sensitiv , bad csd plot , instrument separation bad usually match with low pow tube
It seems like a pretty poor analysis to me, frankly.
Given the huge effect we know frequency response differences will have on perceived sound, ignoring that entirely, and focusing on parameters that have a much more dubious relationship to our perception, is a fundamentally flawed experimental design. On top of that, ignoring the implementation of the said tweeters, or even bothering to MEASURE the parameters you claim to be comparing sound against, instead relying on datasheet values, is sloppy.
This might be a fun 'experiment' to do and theorize about, but it feels like the author didn't have the means to do any sort of technically useful evaluation, but wanted to publish something that looked like a 'technical' evaluation anyway.
I would assume that until demonstrated otherwise, any differences they heard were due to simple frequency response differences, or inappropriate implementation of one or more of the tweeters. QMS/LE differences would be pretty far down the list of suspects.
Given the huge effect we know frequency response differences will have on perceived sound, ignoring that entirely, and focusing on parameters that have a much more dubious relationship to our perception, is a fundamentally flawed experimental design. On top of that, ignoring the implementation of the said tweeters, or even bothering to MEASURE the parameters you claim to be comparing sound against, instead relying on datasheet values, is sloppy.
This might be a fun 'experiment' to do and theorize about, but it feels like the author didn't have the means to do any sort of technically useful evaluation, but wanted to publish something that looked like a 'technical' evaluation anyway.
I would assume that until demonstrated otherwise, any differences they heard were due to simple frequency response differences, or inappropriate implementation of one or more of the tweeters. QMS/LE differences would be pretty far down the list of suspects.
You can't determine a decent tweeter by just those specs. Plenty of great low Qms tweeters out there, especially Be domes. A good tweeter will inherently have low Le due to a small diameter, short VC. Alot of great ones don't even have copper in the VC gap either.
Holy cow that is about as garbage a study as I have seen, and I have seen a few.
This statement:
Also, the author gives no mention about how the drivers were evaluated for their sound. Did he hold them up to his ear? Use them in a loudspeaker? In a test baffle? Where? How? We get nothing, just some random "thoughts" about the "tone" and "body". This, my friends, is what garbage looks like.
This TNT review by Paul Hunting of "TNT UK" is what you get in our modern world when people who have no clue what they are talking about are allowed to post their crap on the internet ad nauseum, my emphasis given to that last word.
This statement:
completely misses the fact that the Thiele-Small parameters (of which Qms is one) are describing the driver's behavior in terms of a model, and that model is only describing the driver near its natural resonance frequency, Fs. A tweeter is not used near its resonant frequency in any good desgin, so this is a completely non-issue. On top of that, even for a woofer that is used around its resonance, Qms has nothing to do with 'better XXX reproduction" in general.
Also, the author gives no mention about how the drivers were evaluated for their sound. Did he hold them up to his ear? Use them in a loudspeaker? In a test baffle? Where? How? We get nothing, just some random "thoughts" about the "tone" and "body". This, my friends, is what garbage looks like.
This TNT review by Paul Hunting of "TNT UK" is what you get in our modern world when people who have no clue what they are talking about are allowed to post their crap on the internet ad nauseum, my emphasis given to that last word.
Totally different tweeters, take a random parameter and try to compare but don't tell anybody how you compared it.
You would need to use ONE tweeter type, alter the magnet/motor, put it in a reference speaker, EQ for the same frequency response and listen next to each other to get an controlled environment. That's a lot of work -> not done by internet warriors.
You would need to use ONE tweeter type, alter the magnet/motor, put it in a reference speaker, EQ for the same frequency response and listen next to each other to get an controlled environment. That's a lot of work -> not done by internet warriors.